Selling T-Shirts and Wristbands for Duke Defense?

[FLALAX]

I thought the purpose of this thread was to debate the sale of items in regards to their defense fund. I am commenting on the thousands of other options for someone's spare funds in regards to buying t-shirts and wrist bands to support these kids.

I will say it again charitable funds that go to this cause go to waste.

[Sonny]

I will say it again charitable funds that go to this cause go to waste.

That is only true if we assume that FLALAX is the only person that can determine if a cause is "charitable."

[StrykerFSU]

http://forums.uslia.com/viewtopic.php?t=4224&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=600

This link has some of the previous discussion of this topic FLALAX...if that is even your real name

[PigPen]

Dude, I think they are innocent, but they are rich. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. Seligmann's high school cost $22,000 a year and Finnerty's was $23,000. In addition, Finnerty is from Garden City, N.Y., and lived in a Dutch colonial house on a cul-de-sac and lives right by a private golf course. Seligmann grew up in Essex Fells, N.J., where multimillion-dollar homes also abound and the current mayor grew up with the lacrosse player’s dad. Essex Fells has a median household income of $148,000, according to the Census Bureau.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you-but median income stats from the census can be deceptive. If Ted Turner lives on your block (and it's a slum) that can really skew the results. I have seen that on many occassions with many communities. Now for Garden City-maybe the kid's parents have had the house there for twenty years-when NY real estate really exploded. My Mom sold her $27,000 (1972) house for $300K last year-and we were dirt poor. In fact we were just po-we coulnd't afford the o or the r. But the real estate in NY (where there is no where left to build) exploded in the last ten years. Point is there is more to look at than just where a guy lives. Now granted, with all that being said-chances are they probably have some dough to send their kids to Duke and then to give their kids pen money to have a party with strippers-since I am pretty sure they didn't have student worker jobs and were not on full rides.

Regardless-I find it very interesting how this whole situation has polarized the lax community (some actually will support a fundreaier, while others have thought the idea is crazy). I realy don't have any opinion-I am just glad they didn't axe the program and that Dano is the captain of the ship. I am also happy that Pressler has landed somewhere and hopefully he can jump back into the DI ranks. Afte rall even Zimmerman is still at UMBC after his troubles in the 80's. Which were alot worse than what Pressler is accused of.

[Gregg Pathiakis]

I just bought my wristband today. Legal defenses are expensive for everyone... even the high-income people. I do believe in their innocence, though, and that's why I bought the wristband. Now, gotta find room on my wrist next to my St. Jude wristband (www.createapepper.com) and Freedom wristband (www.FeedTheChildren.com).

[Hackalicious]

These guys have the money to pay for legal fees.

Falsely accusing them of a crime doesn't mean its OK just because they have money.

Your good name is worth far more to most people with common sense.

Until all the evidence comes to court, I think it's wise to suspend judgement.

But if they can't afford it, they have the right to a public defender.

[Sonny]

These guys have the money to pay for legal fees.

Falsely accusing them of a crime doesn't mean its OK just because they have money.

Your good name is worth far more to most people with common sense.

Until all the evidence comes to court, I think it's wise to suspend judgement.

But if they can't afford it, they have the right to a public defender.

Fair enough Hack.

I should have said:
Accusing them of a crime doesn't mean it's OK just because they supposedly come from a wealthy family. sohotrightnow seemed to imply that.

[PigPen]

But if they can't afford it, they have the right to a public defender.

true

[KevinSchoneck]

they do have a right to a public defender, but in a high profile case like this, that's one of their worst options. public defenders generally fall into the worst 10% of all lawyers. and believe me, there are some really dumb lawyers out there. not to say they would get a dumbass lawyer, but with this case you don't want to risk it. better to shell out for a big attorney.

the fundraiser is questionable. if people think its a good cause, then sure they can spend money on it (there are worse things to do with your money). personally, im just tired of all these crazy rubber wristbands. cmon...cmon....

[peterwho]

Dude, I think they are innocent, but they are rich. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. Seligmann's high school cost $22,000 a year and Finnerty's was $23,000. In addition, Finnerty is from Garden City, N.Y., and lived in a Dutch colonial house on a cul-de-sac and lives right by a private golf course. Seligmann grew up in Essex Fells, N.J., where multimillion-dollar homes also abound and the current mayor grew up with the lacrosse player’s dad. Essex Fells has a median household income of $148,000, according to the Census Bureau.

I'd say that qualifies as well-to-do. If they were poor or middle-class I would say they are. They are not, so I will not say they are.

I don't believe the Clinton's were dirt poor, either. Yet, they raised over $8.2 Million via the Clinton Legal Expense Trust.

If individuals are willing and interested to donate money towards what is expected to be a long (pronounced EXPENSIVE) trail, so be it.

If they get a t-shirt or wrist band to show their support - I'm guessing that's an expression of Free Speech.

Back on topic, the reality is that the current adversarial system is law. That being said and given the current rate for legal fees, the reality is that the more money you have to spend, the better your case. Unless we do something to change the system, we're "stuck" with that reality.

I think people are donating for a variety of reasons and doubt if they will regret their act of generosity based on the outcome of the trial.

All that being said, they might be disappointed if hard evidence is presented that show that the accused are clearly guilty of crimes that they currently claim not to have committed.

[UofMLaxGoalie11]

A little question for our lawyer friends out there. Say in a case like this where the accuser seems to have fabricated the allegations, would it be possible for the defendant, after original trial, to launch a civil suit or something to try and get some money from said accuser in order to pay some of the legal fees? And in this instance, do you think it would be worthwhile, based on the income of the accuser?

[KevinSchoneck]

The only possible civil suit for the defendants that I can see, not knowing the complete facts of this case...is something along the lines as defamation of character.

The defendants in this case would have to prove that the victim was "malicious" or "reckless" in her attempts to file criminal charges against them. That would be extremely difficult I think because if these allegations were reckless, it would not have already been taken to such an advanced stage (most cases will never reach trial).

But like you said, what would they sue for? The only person involved in this trial with something worth suing for is the media for overplaying it (it would only be "overplayed" if the defendants are found not guilty, mind). And even if you have some remote kind of case against some media publication somewhere for "malicious" behavior, you are gonna need to sell a lot more wristbands to cover those court costs.

I think being acquitted of the charges is the only thing these defendants should be worried about at this point.

[Sonny]

The only possible civil suit for the defendants that I can see, not knowing the complete facts of this case...is something along the lines as defamation of character.

The defendants in this case would have to prove that the victim was "malicious" or "reckless" in her attempts to file criminal charges against them. That would be extremely difficult I think because if these allegations were reckless, it would not have already been taken to such an advanced stage (most cases will never reach trial).

But like you said, what would they sue for? The only person involved in this trial with something worth suing for is the media for overplaying it (it would only be "overplayed" if the defendants are found not guilty, mind). And even if you have some remote kind of case against some media publication somewhere for "malicious" behavior, you are gonna need to sell a lot more wristbands to cover those court costs.

I think being acquitted of the charges is the only thing these defendants should be worried about at this point.

I completely disagree Pieper Award Winner.

You could argue that the allegations charged against the three are already reckless, given some of the information we have heard. It might be difficult to prove, but that hasn't stopped many people from filing civil suits in the past.

Proving the charges against the media might be tough... but it seems that the should be looking at filing aginst the DA's office/City of Durham/Durham Police. Some of their statements, behaviors, actions have been highly suspect.

I'd be willing to be that most law firms would take up a civil case in this matter on a contingincy basis - the players don't spend a dime in legal fees and the lawyers only get paid if they are successful in their civil suit. In that case, the players wouldn't have to raise any money for legal help.

Tthis all assume that they are found not guilty in their upcoming criminal trial.

[PigPen]

I have heard this reasoning behind civil suits in which teachers were falsely accused of molesting students (in our society the child is always right). Some kid who hates their Math teacher makes something up and the next thing you know their life is ruined. Now granted, lately the big name cases in the media have involved guilty teachers doing the unthinkable with their kids, but I know of a couple cases in the scenario that I described, where the teacher sued back after being found not guilty-can't remember the outcomes. Kind of like the movie Wild Things, minus the teacher being in on the whole thing.

[KevinSchoneck]

Ahh, Mr. Pieper. You raise very valid points.

Assuming the boys are found not guilty, they could have a case against the DA/local government and they could obtain representation on a contingency basis.

As to the merits of that case...well it depends on the criminal trial. If they DA makes a really good case (and I mean really good in light of the information the public currently has) then that should be sufficient to preclude some "recklessness" on the account of the local government.

I asked some of my professors about the case to get a broader scope of legal opinion and what I found out was they boys could very well sue and get representation on contigency like you said, but likely they would only stand to recover their lawyer fees and maybe a little extra. That depends on how negligent this whole criminal proceeding turns out to be.

It's a crapshoot. It really depends on what happens now and what kind of lawyers you can pull to represent in the civil trial. And I will admit, that I'm still learning the full scope of the law down here in school. : )